At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
By, (PRESIDENT) AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK K. ARYA
For Petitioner: G.R. Singh, DR And For Respondents: Shreya Dahiya, Advocate
1. The present appeal is filed by the Department against the order-in-appeal No. 108/2013, dated 15-5-2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur-I. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, M.S. Billet, M.S. Wire Rod, Rib Bar/TMT Bar, etc., falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and availing the Cenvat credit of inputs, capital goods and input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was held that during the period from 2006-07 to 2007-08 the assessee-respondents have undervalued the goods inasmuch as they have cleared the goods to their sister concern without adding 10% to the cost of production as under Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. After issuing a show cause notice, the adjudicating authority vide its order dated 22-6-2012 confirmed the demand of duty along with interest or penalty on the basis of the value. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee-respondents have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has granted relief by observing that the assessable value has to be determined under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 and Rule 9 in respect of the goods supplied to their sister concern for captive consumption. The Appellate Authority has also accepted the certificate of the Chartered Accountant and after adjustment, computed the duty liability of Rs. 90,340/- and set aside the remaining amount. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeal.
2. With this background, we have heard Shri G.R. Singh, learned DR for the Revenue and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, learned counsel for the assessee-respondents.
3. After hearing both sides, we find that Appellate Authority has accepted the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant with respect to computation of the cost of production. It is the only submission of the appellant-Department that the certificate must be issued by the Cost Accountant. But the fact remains that as per the Board's Circular No. 979/3/2014-CX., dated 15-1-2014; the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is also a valid certificate. The relevant portion of the Circular is as under:
"Calculations of manufacturing cost may be carried out using CAS-4 standards. Information submitted by the manufacturer, duly certified by a Chartered or Cost Accountant should normally be accepted. Only where a decision to investigate a case has been taken at the level of the Commissioner and it is considered necessary in the interest of investigation, steps such as ordering cost audit of the unit or summoning of the costing data shou
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ld be undertaken." When the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is valid one, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.